You are here

Interior Department Releases Peer Review Of Oyster Farm Impacts At Point Reyes National Seashore

Share

The National Park Service's draft environmental impact statement on an oyster farm at Point Reyes National Seashore was not perfect, but it was an "adequate analysis" in light of the "available scientific information," according to an outside consultant.

"Overall, the reviewers found the analyses to be appropriate, and that there is no fundamental flaw with the larger scientific underpinning of the DEIS," noted the evaluation prepared by Atkins North America. "The identified scientific misinterpretations, or lack of citation of appropriate literature are for the most part minor, and can be rectified if the NPS so wishes. This may also include making some additional adjustments to interpretation, and explicit acknowledgement of the lack of information on some key issues."

Interior Department officials, who released the report (attached below) Monday, said it will help the Park Service improve the final EIS on the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. operations at Drakes Estero in Point Reyes.

“The peer-review accomplished exactly what we were seeking – that is, specific recommendations on how to improve the final environmental impact statement to make it a better science product,” Dr. Ralph Morgenweck, Interior’s Scientific Integrity Officer, said in a prepared statement.

Dr. Morgenweck commissioned the independent peer review of the draft EIS in light of concerns over the science related to Point Reyes.

“We welcome these constructive recommendations that will help strengthen the final EIS,” added Peggy O’Dell, deputy director for operations of the National Park Service. “We will look to address the Atkins Report comments, as well as information contained in the public comments on the draft EIS as we work toward a more comprehensive and thorough final report."

Seashore staff have been crafting an Environmental Impact Statement to assess the oyster company's operations. The issue is timely, as the oyster company's 40-year lease runs out in November, and Congress long ago said the estero should be designated as official wilderness once all non-conforming uses are removed from it. 

The draft EIS was released for public review back in December, and the final EIS is expected later this summer.

The interest in the fate of an oyster company that produces between 450,000-500,000 pounds of Pacific oyster meat a year for Bay Area outlets has been fanned by both U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, an ardent supporter of the oyster company and its small workforce, and environmentalists and conservationists who want to see the estero granted official wilderness designation.

To review the DEIS, Atkins North America retained five outside experts: Dr. James E. Wilen, who specializes in natural resource economics at the University of California, Davis; Professor Edwin Grosholz, who teaches environmental science at the University of California, Davis; Professor Dianna K. Padilla, who teaches in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook; Dr. Charlie Wisdom, a privately employed water quality specialist with nearly three decades' of experience, and; Dr. Christopher Willes Clark of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Many of the greatest concerns raised by the outside review centered on socio-economic analyses tied to the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. operations in Drakes Estero at the national seashore.

"... it is my opinion that the methods used to conduct an economic assessment of policy options do not follow accepted economic impact analysis practice," wrote Dr. Wilen. "The basic issue appears to be that the data required to conduct an economic impact analysis has not been gathered.

"That basic data would include, at minimum, measures of the value of gross sales and of the costs of labor and other materials for DBOC.  As a result of data deficiencies, the analysis is not able to quantitatively scale the direct first round economic impacts of the DBOC operations in a manner that is meaningful for judging overall economic impacts."

The report also found fault with Park Service conclusions that were either speculative or unsupported by peer-reviewed publications or which were "not reasonable based on scientific evidence." 

"It should be noted that data from studies specific to Drakes Estero for birds and other taxa including invertebrates, fishes are cited from three unpublished theses by Harbin-Ireland, Press, and Wechsler," noted Professor Grosholz. "These theses have not produced a single peer-reviewed publication.  Therefore, the conclusions from these studies should be viewed as very preliminary and with caution.

"The report relies too much on these studies," he added, though noting that that perhaps was understandable, "since there are really no other studies available."

At the same time, the reviewers noted, the Park Service overlooked dozens of existing, pertinent studies, such as "nearly a decade of studies" on how oysters can impact "water column productivity."

The failure of the Park Service to rely on such studies was a "remarkable oversight," they wrote.

Comments

I understand there are exceptions. However, I'm wondering why there are no clear legislative clues as to what it means. Here's the act that created Desolation Wilderness:

http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/publiclaws/PDF/91-82.pdf

Basically all it says about dams and manmade lakes is that existing hydroelectric facilities have a right of access (I suppose even with motorized transport), although it makes no mention on a non hydro-electric dam like the one at Lake Aloha.

And the California Wilderness Act:

http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/PublicLaws/PDF/98-425.pdf

There are clear grandfathered activies in the same law for wilderness areas under Forest Service control. The Carson-Iceberg Wilderness is allowed to have motorized vehicle access to service livestock grazing. Fire Roads in the Dick Smith Wilderness are allowed to be accessed by the Forest Service for administrative purposes. The Dinkey Lakes Wilderness is allowed to maintain dispersed recreation. The San Jacinto Wilderness is allowed to develop a corridor for an electrical transmission line if granted by the Secretary of Agriculture. There's even mention of a dam.

I mentioned the Merced High Sierra Camp in Yosemite. Apparently classified as potential wilderness. It's one short paragraph (page 9) in the California Wilderness Act of 1984 that describes the land but zero about any exceptions. They've got everything. Flush toilets. Permanent buildings. Kitchen facilities. Helicopters coming in and out to take out the waste. The law does say that potential wilderness can be moved to full wilderness status when uses incompatible with the Wilderness Act have ceased, but doesn't set a timetable for it. I've wondered why it's been interpreted that the ROU can't be extended in Point Reyes, but the contracts for the High Sierra Camps are extended on a regular basis and will appear to be so indefinitely.

Somehow this very "non-conforming use" stays despite the use of helicopters and a tremendous footprint.  There's nothing in the law that says one way or another if there's a timetable, so NPS just continues to renew the contract. There's a phrase to describe this - "management decision".

What I sense is a huge double-standard. I can't count how many times I've heard the term "non-conforming use" and how it means the oyster racks have to go once the RUO expires. In the meantime there are several contracts in Yosemite that expire on a regular basis and somehow they get renewed. This is a commercial business. They have a large concentrated footprint in what would otherwise be a dispersed camping setting. They've got flush toilets and permanent cooking/dining facilities. They've got helicopters coming in to haul out their garbage and poop. If I didn't already know this photo was of Merced High Sierra Camp, I would have thought it was employee housing in Yosemite Valley.


YPW--You seem like a reasonalbe person. Do you have a vested interest in the oyster farm? I can't imagine what else would be driving your repeated comments on the issue.

Rick


I have no vested interest in the oyster farm. I'm only an occasional customer and have never met Kevin Lunny. I think I bought something like six last weekend at a local fish market. Actually - Kurt has asked me about my big interest in all things NPS, and he could comb through his emails for why Point Reyes in particular is special to me. Personally if it goes away, I'll probably just buy from Hog Island. Not bad, but I rather liked the little shack at DBOC rather than the more corporate looking digs (especially the two oyster bars) that Hog Island runs. I'm also not going to pay $10 a person just to use their picnic tables.

However, I always hear excuses for why this oyster farm must go when there are many existing cases of "non-conforming uses" are allowed to exist all across the county in wilderness areas without anything more than just executive decisions to keep such uses in place. I'd just like to hear someone say the real reason why there's a call to remove the farm is that it's a mangement decision. NPS has spent a lot of money trying to explain why the oyster farm must go rather than just cut to the point that it's a decision that could have been legally decided the other way if management decided differently.

I'm also wondering what might have happened if the previous (and recently deceased) Superindendent had stayed in place instead of retiring. My understanding is that he was considerably less hostile to the oyster farm than his replacement. Personally I think the farm gives Point Reyes some character that is lacking in many NPS units where it seems to be all about "preservation at all costs". It's a working farm, and feels like something that should be there. I like how the cattle ranches give Point Reyes a certain charm (even if some of the ranches are struggling due to the economy) and feel that the oyster farm is an aquatic counterpart.


Rock On, Y_P_W!


Maybe you should broaden your view, Mr. Smith.  There's a lot of people out there that have very similar feelings on this issue and others.  I'd be willing to say that what NPS is putting out there on this is a minority opinion.  


YPW great insight, but these ideas of what is wilderness, proposed wilderness, etc... are all left open to interpretation that when applied in a court of law always lean biased towards the environment. The rules of what is natural and not does not apply to the elitist who created and use the trails, lodgings, etc... It is kind of like why are roads, parking lots and restrooms allowed in Yellowstone? They do not appear naturally do they? You have a boardwalk built around Old Faithful for Gods sake and yet they claim only things that appear in nature are allowed. I could go on for days on the hypocrites make the rules from thier armchairs...


Why can't we just get along with having an oyster farm?  What good does this designation do?  Potential or full wilderness - who cares except some policy wonk that wants to restrict your actions?  Can the staff at Point Reyes tell me how many bikes per week ride on the trails that are desigated wilderness? 


samsdad1:
YPW great insight, but these ideas of what is wilderness, proposed wilderness, etc... are all left open to interpretation that when applied in a court of law always lean biased towards the environment. The rules of what is natural and not does not apply to the elitist who created and use the trails, lodgings, etc... It is kind of like why are roads, parking lots and restrooms allowed in Yellowstone? They do not appear naturally do they? You have a boardwalk built around Old Faithful for Gods sake and yet they claim only things that appear in nature are allowed. I could go on for days on the hypocrites make the rules from thier armchairs...

       I get your point, but I also understand the point of wilderness preservation as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. I did find it special that I could walk into an area where pretty much the only semi-permanent signs of human activity were a few signs and maintained trails. I deeply enjoyed being on top of Half Dome (even with a view of the Ahwanee Hotel), Clouds Rest, Mt Tallac, or even Mt Wittenberg at Point Reyes.

I'd like to see the farm stay, but then again I'd also like for all sides to come to some conclusions about certain issues. I'm not going to ignore that there have been issues with where their boats have traveled during seal pupping season, the placement of oyster racks that may choke off light to eelgrass, the use of pressure treated wood, and other things. However, it's also pretty clear to me that those advocating for the removal of the oyster farm also pick and choose their facts if they feel it bolsters their arguments, and we all do. However, wildlife is thriving in Drakes Estero and anyone visiting Point Reyes would see that Drakes Estero has all the characteristics of a wilderness waterway save the oyster racks. To me, the argument seems to be less about the impacts of oyster farming but rather "wilderness" as some sort of idealogical purity. Is the guy fly fishing with his family in some small lake any more disruptive to the wilderness ideal than a bunch of workers in hip waders pulling bags from oyster racks?

Also - I think there needs to be a distinction between what is designated wilderness and what is not. Yellowstone has no designated wilderness. Neither does Grand Canyon NP or Glacier NP. It's rather ironic, because these parks are examples of what many people feel are wilderness ideals - remote locations with nary a sign of permanent human activity. Most of Yellowstone is de facto wilderness even if Congress hasn't designated it as such. However, the boardwalks and paved trails around Old Faithful will never be designated wilderness. Neither will Yosemite Valley, Paradise at Mt Rainier, Zion Canyon, etc. The most heavily visited areas are generally unsuitable for wilderness designation, although there are some exceptions such as the Mist Trail or Half Dome in Yosemite.

I for one see some wilderness proponents advocating that places such as the High Sierra Camps should stay, but somehow Drakes Bay Oyster Farm can not. They're all commercial enterprises meant to make money for their owners. They all use permanent or semi-permanent structures in potential wilderness areas. They use transportation sources that would otherwise not be allowed if they were full designated wilderness areas. However, with Neubacher in charge at Yosemite now, I'm not sure that the HSC permits are going to be renewed.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.